Greg Ransom writes: 
 
>make that: 
> 
>Lowe + Sombart -->  Leontief --> Solow -->  Blinder 
 
I don't think so.  Lowe was not really Leontief's teacher.  And I think 
this may point to some of the pitfalls of this exercise.  Are we talking 
about an individual's primary mentor or supervisor (again, Bortkiewicz was 
Leontief's supervisor, not Sombart), or just anybody they took a class 
with.  If it is the latter, we could come up with all kinds of perverse 
links.  Also, there are supervisors and there are *supervisors* (i.e. there 
is not always the same degree of influence or close mentoring across the 
board).  And in some cases, there are other known influences (where, for 
whatever reason, the most influential person was not the person's actual 
teacher or supervisor, or a person's primary influence was a personal or 
political event (e.g. Great Depression, rise of Nazism). 
 
The most interesting geneologies in my view would be ones that have 
identifiable common themes.  For example, I think 
 
   Bortkiewicz (or Bortkiewicz + Kiel if one likes) -> Leontief -> Duchin 
 
is a lot more interesting to consider.  I find the Leontief -> Solow move 
much weaker.  I guess it may depend on what aspect of one's work one is 
interested in. 
 
___________________________________ 
 
Mathew Forstater      Department of Economics 
        Gettysburg College     Gettysburg, PA  17325 
 
tel: (717) 337-6668   fax: (717) 337-6251   e-mail: [log in to unmask]